Maria Gaspar

The appellant was convicted of conspiring to import cocaine into Australia and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.

The Crown's case relied heavily on cell phone data, including text messages, WhatsApp group chats, and audio recordings involving the appellant and his co-conspirators.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the admissibility of the audio recordings, the trial judge's treatment of a co-conspirator's testimony, the application of the wilful blindness standard, and the characterization of the conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or legal analysis.

The Court also dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that the nine-year sentence was fit and did not violate the principle of parity when compared to the co-accused's sentence, given the co-accused's early guilty plea.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Jason Immel’s conviction appeal for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, finding no error in the trial judge’s reasoning or assessment of the evidence.

The court allowed the sentence appeal in part, reducing the sentence for possession of proceeds of crime to the statutory maximum of two years, concurrent with the fentanyl sentence, but otherwise upheld the global sentence.

The appellant was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to eight years in jail.

He appealed the conviction, raising three grounds: the trial judge erred by not applying Vetrovec principles to a witness's evidence and failing to provide sufficient reasons for relying on it, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a Vetrovec caution is not mandatory in judge-alone trials and the trial judge was aware of the witness's credibility issues, relying only on corroborated aspects of his testimony.

The court also found the verdict reasonable, as the circumstantial evidence, viewed holistically, amply supported the conclusion that the appellant knowingly possessed the package.

The appellant, Mustaf Yusuf, was on judicial interim release pending his appeal, with conditions including remaining in Ontario and surrendering for the appeal hearing.

His counsel advised the court that he failed to surrender because he was in prison in Somalia, breaching his release conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned, in accordance with the terms of the release order, and issued a warrant for his arrest.

The appellant, Shawn Tedder, appealed his 2018 conviction for marijuana trafficking and his sentence.

He primarily argued that his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the motions judge's conclusion that the appellant had expressly waived an 8-month period of delay, resulting in a net delay of 29 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling set in R. v. Jordan.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the sentence, which had proceeded as a joint submission.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting cash seizure evidence as discreditable conduct without proper notice, provided confusing jury instructions, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the cash seizure evidence was contemporaneous circumstantial evidence not relying on propensity reasoning, thus not requiring a Rule 30 application.

The jury instructions were deemed sufficient, and the verdict was reasonable given the compelling circumstantial evidence of the appellant's involvement in drug trafficking.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a six-month custodial sentence for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The sentence was imposed after a miscommunication within the Public Prosecution Service of Canada led to the prosecution seeking a nine-month sentence at trial, despite an internal intention to propose a joint submission for a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, set aside the custodial sentence, and substituted a conditional sentence of 150 days, finding it appropriate given the appellant's personal circumstances, efforts to address addiction, employment, family responsibilities, and remorse.

The appellant, a Canada Border Services Agency officer, appealed a 10-year sentence for conspiring to import cocaine and breach of trust.

The appeal challenged the sentencing range and the judge's consideration of time spent on house arrest and pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal upheld the 10-year sentence but granted credit for pre-sentence custody, reduced a firearms prohibition to 10 years, and set aside a victim surcharge.

The appellant was convicted by jury of possession of heroin for the purposes of trafficking and possession of heroin.

On appeal, the Crown conceded that the trial judge erred by failing to provide a W.D. instruction in the jury charge that would have made clear that a route to acquittal was available even if the jury disbelieved the appellant's evidence.

The appellate court agreed that the curative proviso could not be relied upon.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered on counts 2 and 3 of the indictment.

The appellant was convicted of various drug offences and possession of proceeds of crime.

On appeal, he challenged the trial judge's decision to dismiss his application to exclude evidence obtained through a search warrant, arguing that the information to obtain the warrant (ITO) was insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds that evidence would be found at the specified residence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the information provided by confidential sources regarding the appellant's drug trafficking activities was sufficiently corroborated and that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in finding reasonable and probable grounds to issue the warrant.

The appellant appealed his conviction for drug trafficking and his sentence.

The appeal raised two grounds: first, that the trial judge failed to indicate she was not relying on improper expert opinion evidence regarding drug quantities; and second, that the trial judge erred in her section 24(2) Charter analysis by admitting evidence obtained following a section 10(a) breach.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds, finding that the trial judge was not required to explicitly reference the improper evidence and that the trial judge properly analyzed the causative link between the breach and the evidence as real evidence rather than conscriptive statements.

The applicant, facing numerous charges including conspiracy and trafficking fentanyl, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel.

While the court found that representation by counsel was essential for a fair trial and that the applicant had exhausted Legal Aid options, it concluded she had not established a lack of financial means.

The court noted that the applicant's spouse earned a significant income and had a legal obligation to support her, which she had not pursued.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to a future application on a better evidentiary basis.